Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks—that is helpful.

Peter Krykant said in his opening statement that he was not a drug user when he was 16 and in care. The Transform Drug Policy Foundation submission states that 13 per cent of people in prison were not drug users before they went to prison. There is quite a big theme about people ending up taking drugs because they are in prison or in care or whatever. Mr Krykant, what else should we be doing to prevent that? What should the Parliament’s priority be in building a wider strategy that will make a difference on Scotland’s drug deaths, which I suppose is what Neil Richardson has talked about?

I wonder whether anyone has any comments on the 13 per cent of prisoners who enter prison with no previous history of drug use but start using drugs in prison. I find that worrying. As well as supporting people who are already on drugs when they go into prison, we need to worry about the 13 per cent. Why is that happening and what should we be doing about it?

Yes. We will have to use international examples, and examples that are perhaps anecdotal but which are nevertheless compelling. The chief medical officer and the chief pharmaceutical officer have addressed us, and there has been some agreement on the need for proper trials. Although it is legal just now for general practitioners to prescribe certain cannabis products, they might not have the confidence to do so. Trials are therefore really important, and we want to ensure that we are pushing at that door, which is partly open, I feel. I think that there is a lot of interest in the issue, but, as you would expect, any Government or medical system wants things to be tried and tested.

Thank you very much.

I am in absolutely no doubt that establishing the CPG would give an invaluable platform to people who have felt that they have had no connection through which to influence decision makers. That is why it is important for us to formalise our work. I think that there will be a great deal of interest in the CPG, and I hope that we can work constructively with the medical profession and the Government to produce something over the next few years.

Good morning, convener. I thank the committee’s clerk, Sam Currie, for the support that she is giving us as we try to set up the group. I hope that the committee will be satisfied with the proposal.

The proposed CPG is probably the first group of its kind that does not overlap with anything else. We have already done quite a bit of work. Having run informal meetings with an amazing group of people who believe that there are credible health benefits to the use of cannabis, I thought that there would be interest in a formal cross-party group.

The group seeks to understand better the benefits of medicinal cannabis and to recognise case studies that indicate its positive impact on patients who suffer from a variety of conditions. It also seeks to support patients’ rights to access the medicine.

The committee might be familiar with some high-profile cases, such as that of young Cole, who cannot get access to prescribed Bedrolite on the national health service and whose family has to pay for it privately. Taking that medicine has led to an incredible reduction in Cole’s convulsions. In fact, he has hardly had any episodes since he began taking it.

For some patients, medicinal cannabis is absolutely life changing. We have heard informal evidence from people who speak to the fact that some serious health conditions have simply been cleared up by the use of certain types of cannabis product. Therefore, it is in the public interest that we examine the evidence-based research and seek to investigate case studies for people with chronic illnesses who would benefit from medicinal cannabis.

The topics that we anticipate discussing include: access to Bedrolite and other cannabis-based drugs that have a high cost to bring into the country, which is more difficult because of Brexit; a card, known as med can, that the state of Colorado in the US provides for medical cannabis users to show that their use is for health needs; and the human right of patients to access medicinal cannabis versus the public health issue. I feel strongly that, if patients feel that it is beneficial to them, they should not be prevented from using a cannabis product—of which there are many—because of any laws against or judgments about people using such products.

Members might ask why I set up the group. My father, who had severe arthritis, used to ask me whether, if we ever legalised cannabis, I would be the first person to get him some so that he could alleviate his pain and suffering. He believed that it would have done so but, being a law-abiding person, he sadly passed five years ago without getting the chance to find out.

Many people believe that medicinal cannabis will alleviate conditions such as arthritis. That is what drove me to do the work to reduce stigma using the evidence base and working with the national health service. We have a good relationship with the NHS. There is some political resistance to the work, but there is also some interest in it.

We also want to explore whether there should be legislation on cannabis growers. Committee members have probably noticed that a lot more people take cannabis tablets or other cannabis products for health reasons. It is becoming big business and we want to ensure that it is not something that only big business can control. That is why we are interested in cannabis growing.

Those are our main purposes. Rona Mackay has agreed to co-convene the group. Miles Briggs, who has done a huge amount of work on the matter as well, and Oliver Mundell are our Conservative members. Monica Lennon, who has been part of the informal group, Paul Sweeney and Pam Duncan-Glancy have also signed up already. Our members include a number of individuals—they are mentioned in your papers—and organisations, such as the Scottish patient subgroup of Patient-Led Engagement for Access, the Scottish cannabis consortium and the Multiple Sclerosis Society Scotland. I expect a lot more interest if the committee approves our application.

Does that not happen?

Perhaps I should pursue the issue a wee bit further another time, because there are a lot of different priorities around decarbonising the estate. I have experienced the poor estate on my patch in Glasgow. I am glad that you mentioned visibility, because from the public’s point of view, a police office needs to be quite different from any other environment, so visibility is important. It should not be completely driven by best value because it is a distinct service.

You will have heard some of the evidence that the committee has taken. I will summarise what has interested me about the evidence that we have taken. We heard criminal lawyers and the Faculty of Advocates talk about the fee structure. The Faculty of Advocates said that it has upped the average number of daily cases from 12 to 20, but it still thinks that there will be a shortage of defence lawyers in the system.

We also heard a lot about the job of a defence solicitor. There is an important point to address here about the work-life balance of defence solicitors. They have to go to the police station late at night. The vulnerability of many of the clients of defence solicitors must be acknowledged, too. Do you agree that, as part of any changes to the system, there needs to be acknowledgement of the fact that being a defence solicitor brings with it all those things? Whether a defence solicitor works for the PDSO service or has their own firm, the job is probably much the same—they deal with vulnerable people in the criminal justice system who want a choice of lawyer and who want to be properly represented to give themselves the best chance of having their case put. Most ordinary people probably do not appreciate the hours that defence solicitors work. Do you agree that such acknowledgement is required?

My next question is one that the Scottish Police Federation has posed. It is about public confidence and the pressures on the police. According to the SPF,

“police officers across Scotland have almost 50,000 rest days due to be re-rostered as a consequence of operational demands outstripping available resources. Beyond that … an additional … 100,000 … days have already been re-rostered to future dates.”

The obvious question is, how long can we keep doing that for? Is the authority asking the Scottish Government to programme that in? Through the pandemic, police officers have had to put public policing first, which builds up roster days. I would have thought that it would be grossly unfair not to recognise that that is an additional pressure on the policing budget. What is your ask of the Scottish Government in relation to that?